Organizational Change Management for Hofstede - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theOrganizational Change Management for Hofstede Model. Answer: Impact of culture and on organizational change program Organizational change management is a framework with the help of which the manager identifies the changes present in the business process. Power is regarded as an important factor for organization to initiate change management. The purpose of this essay is to provide a brief description about the Hofstedes cultural dimension in Singapore and Australia. It also talks about the types of power and its impact in negative and positive way. Also, it should be noted that culture has a nature of collective occurrence which can used in different learning models. These models are used in the early childhood period when a person is more adaptive towards learning. The below mentioned paper will also review the national dimensions which use of five bases of power. The Hofstedes model will support the by provide clear and concise information about cultural activities of the countries. Lastly, the paper will also argue the use of power in change programs of different countries. Power refers to the way in which one person makes other person do some activity; also this power is not present among all people. Some, people have the capability to perform such actions. Many powers can be used to change the management; the power is not a negative aspect. Instead it depends upon its use which differs from person to person. Further, it should be noted that the Hofstedes model adequately provides information about the cultural dimension of a country. It discusses about six aspects of the culture that are power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long term orientation and lastly indulgence. On evaluating the culture of Singapore, it was analyzed that there is presence of multi-ethnicity in the society as there are 77% of Chinese, 15% of Malay, 6% of Indians and 2% of expatriate in the society (Yeo, Pang 2017, 112-122). Comparing it to the country Australia, it should be noted that in Australia only 67% of British resides with some European eth nicities and a minimal number of aboriginal natives that is 2%, are left in the country (Yeo, Pang 2017, 112-122). The initial aspect of Hofstedes dimension that is power distance refers to the attribute that talks about the degree to which less powerful member of the society are accept and expect that power is distributed in the society unequally. This aspect tells about the amount to which people handles inequalities among them. Relating it to the country Singapore, it should be noted that people in this country are more dependent on their managers to take decision. They do not hold any type of decision making right in the working of the organization (De Souza 2018, 19-49). This activity is initiated because the majority population of the country is Chinese who believes in Confucian teachings. Whereas talking about Australia, it should be noted that power distance index in the country relatively high which states that people in this country do not strive for the organizational rights. Further, as there is prevalence of flat organizational structure in the country which makes it easier for peopl e to directly their manager to solve the issue (Comber 2015, 362-367). The next dimension is the individualism versus collectivism (IDV) dimension which talks about the degree to which people in a country prefer taking care of only themselves and their immediate families in the society. The features of collectivism talks about the preference of people in the society to care for their relatives and other members in a group and provide them unquestioning loyalty as well (Ferraro, Briody 2017). The loosely knit group talks in the language of I and the tightly knit groups talks in the language of We. Further, in the country Singapore, people do care for their large extended family; they rely on them as well. They score very low in this frame as they believe in initiating activities together. Contradicting to the case in Australia, people in this country share the feeling of individualism and only care for their immediate family and themselves. These people are self-reliable do not prefer depending on someone for their cost of living or emotional support. P eople of Singapore are regarded as collectivist whereas Australians are called individualists (Caleon, et. al. 2015, 925-942). Masculinity refers to the dimension that represents a preference in the society for heroism, monetary rewards and achievement in the society. And on the other hand, femininity stands for the preference for co-operation, modesty and caring in the society. The two aspects contradict to their works, as masculinity talks about the quantitative growth whereas femininity talks about quality of life. Many times this aspect is also related to tough versus tender. Further, Singapore scores 48 in this case which means that the society is little more inclined towards femininity whereas in the case of Australia, the score is 61. It states that the country is dominated by male section of the society (Oc, et. al. 2015, 68-80). Uncertainty avoidance refers to the way in which society coupes with the upcoming contingent situations. It talks about the ways in which people tackle with unknown situations coming on their way. The country Singapore scores 8 in this case where as Australia score 51 (Prado , et. al. 2014, 420-428). The score 8 states that the country fully abides the rules and regulations formed for their betterment. Further long term orientation refers to the degree of thinking of people to act for the future growth while keeping in mind the past experiences. 72 is scored by Singapore which says that the country believes in approach long term goals whereas Australia score a little in long term orientation which suggest that people of this country aims on a short term normative orientation approach (Inglehart, 2018). Lastly, indulgence dimension talks about the extent to which people in a country try to control their emotions and impulses. Australia scores 71 which states that people of this country are more indulgent where Singapore score 41 which shows that people of Singapore are restrainted. Indulgent people tend to be livelier and they enjoy their life doing what they want to do. The feature of restraint tells about the suppression of gratification of needs and s trict social norms (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, Roth 2017, 30-47). Further as discussed above, power is the potential influence that makes one person do some activities which other person wants them to do. The French and Raven adequately described the five bases of power; the categories under this case are legitimacy, reward, expert, reference, coercive. Legitimate refers to the power that makes a person to impose responsibility on the person. Position of a person is mainly concerned under this case as one person has the authority to designate work to other person more than just leadership. Once, a person loses their designation then they can no longer have the power to impose responsibility to other person. Such powers are held with the leaders in the society such as CEO of a company or any political leader. Further the second aspect of power (coercive) talks about the power to threaten someone (van den Bos, van Veldhuizen, Au 2015, 52-75). The leaders use this power to punish or reward someone for their work done. Under this concept, the decision of the leader is always combined with the rewards or punishment which the subordinate needs to bear. Expert power refers to the power under which the leader provides advice or information to their subordinates in an organization. Under this power the leader uses their knowledge and skills to help other people. The power of referent deals with one persons likes and respect towards another person. For instance, this power is used by celebrities as they can easily influence their fans on what to buy and what not to. This power is a major responsibility (Blanger, et. al. 2016, 287-300). Talking about the impact of culture on power, it should be noted that all the dimensions of Hofstedes model affect a countrys power. Talking about power distance in the country Singapore, it should be noted that the country is more expected to have legitimate power. The country uses such type of power because there is high degree of power distance in the country. Whereas, on the other hand, as Australia has a low score in this case so this country uses the power of expert or referent. Australia uses this type of power because there is presence of people who aim for equality in the society. Experts of the society are he king pin that molds the activities of an organization present in the market (Blanger, et. al. 2015, 25-43). Also, the country Australia is an individualistic country, so the employees of country have to act economically so as to maintain the cost of living themselves; further, a mutual interest is maintain between the employees and the mangers present in the society. T hus, it should be noted that the expert feature adequately supports the cultural activities of the country, as an individualistic country which makes the manager to initiate their power in such a way that it provide assistance to the employee to maintain their daily activities (Aiello, Tesi, Pratto, Pierro 2018). The power of expert helps the management to easily solve the critical problems in the organization and help the employees as well. Apart from that, talking about the country Singapore, it should be noted that the country is a strong belief of collectivist society where all relatives live together and support each other with their daily routine activities. Resulting which the power of legitimate would adequately work in the society. The legitimate power works according to the social hierarchical ways and according to the cultural norms. Under this case, the organizational structure provides the power to the leaders to enact different activities in an organization. The leade rs under this case have full right to impose responsibilities or oblige the employees according to work issued to them. Relating the case of legitimate power with the collectivist culture of the society it should be noted that as the people of this country are dependent on their superiors which initiates them to agree on the restrictions imposed on them (Liu, Almor 2016, 4-14). In order to implement a change in an organization, the most important feature which is required is power as without adequate power no leader can make their decision effective in an organization. Organizational change management refers to the framework that deals with the process of change initiated in an organization for the good. Power is the only thing that influence people in an organization and motivate them to follow the change as well. The change manager process is initiated by the CEO of the company, manager, leader, board members etc. Further, as discussed above there are many bases in which the power used in an organization is differentiated. It wholly and solely depends upon the culture of an organization according to which power should be implied. Like, if legitimate power is implied in an individualistic country then the power would not show its effect on the change (Demirtas, Akdogan 2015, 59-67). Thus it should be noted, the power and culture, both the factors that inf luence change program are directly related to each. An organization needs to power the right type of power according to the culture in order to initiate changes. Lastly, it should be noted that use of power would be more efficient in Singapore if the employee have ruling authority above them. According to the power distant feature of cultural dimension, people of this country are more influenced by the powerful and they need a ruling authority above them. And change would be effective in the organizations of Australia if all the employees receive equal right to suggest their point of view and live life sustainably (Chua, Roth, Lemoine 2015, 189-227). Activities like open discussion and diagonal communication would initiate change management activities in Australia. Thus, in the limelight of above mentioned events, it should be noted the power is highly dependent upon the culture of country. If the powers used by the leaders in an organization contradict to the culture then the change management program would be ineffective. The above mentioned task adequately explains the cultural dimension of both Australia and Singapore and uses of different basis of power in the different countries. The essay justifies the requirements of the task. References Aiello, Antonio, Alessio Tesi, Felicia Pratto, and Antonio Pierro. "Social dominance and interpersonal power: Asymmetrical relationships within hierarchy?enhancing and hierarchy?attenuating work environments."Journal of Applied Social Psychology(2018). Blanger, Jocelyn J., Antonio Pierro, Barbara Barbieri, Nicola A. De Carlo, Alessandra Falco, and Arie W. Kruglanski. "One size doesnt fit all: the influence of supervisors power tactics and subordinates need for cognitive closure on burnout and stress."European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology25, no. 2 (2016): 287-300. Blanger, Jocelyn J., Antonio Pierro, Barbara Barbieri, Nicola A. De Carlo, Alessandra Falco, and Arie W. Kruglanski. "Handling conflict at work: The role of fit between subordinates need for closure and supervisors power tactics."International Journal of Conflict Management26, no. 1 (2015): 25-43. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Tatiana Kostova, and Kendall Roth. "An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006."Journal of International Business Studies48, no. 1 (2017): 30-47. Caleon, Imelda S., Ma Glenda L. Wui, Jennifer Pei-Ling Tan, Ching Leen Chiam, Tan Chee Soon, and Ronnel B. King. "Cross-cultural validation of the Academic Motivation Scale: A Singapore investigation."Child Indicators Research8, no. 4 (2015): 925-942. Chua, Roy YJ, Yannig Roth, and Jean-Franois Lemoine. "The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work."Administrative Science Quarterly60, no. 2 (2015): 189-227. Comber, Barbara. "Critical literacy and social justice."Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy58, no. 5 (2015): 362-367. De Souza, Denise E. "Educational change in Singapore and its tinkeringaround the edges: A critical realist perspective."Journal of Educational Change19, no. 1 (2018): 19-49. Demirtas, Ozgur, and A. Asuman Akdogan. "The effect of ethical leadership behavior on ethical climate, turnover intention, and affective commitment."Journal of Business Ethics130, no. 1 (2015): 59-67. Ferraro, Gary P., and Elizabeth K. Briody.The cultural dimension of global business. Taylor Francis, 2017. Inglehart, Ronald F.Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Liu, Yipeng, and Tamar Almor. "How culture influences the way entrepreneurs deal with uncertainty in inter-organizational relationships: The case of returnee versus local entrepreneurs in China."International Business Review25, no. 1 (2016): 4-14. Oc, Burak, Michael R. Bashshur, Michael A. Daniels, Gary J. Greguras, and James M. Diefendorff. "Leader humility in Singapore."The Leadership Quarterly26, no. 1 (2015): 68-80. Prado, Catherine, David Mellor, Linda K. Byrne, Christopher Wilson, Xiaoyan Xu, and Hong Liu. "Facial emotion recognition: a cross-cultural comparison of Chinese, Chinese living in Australia, and Anglo-Australians."Motivation and Emotion38, no. 3 (2014): 420-428. van den Bos, Kees, Tanja S. van Veldhuizen, and Al KC Au. "Counter cross-cultural priming and relative deprivation: The role of individualismcollectivism."Social Justice Research28, no. 1 (2015): 52-75. Yeo, Su Lin, and Augustine Pang. "Asian multiculturalism in communication: Impact of culture in the practice of public relations in Singapore."Public Relations Review43, no. 1 (2017): 112-122.